IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP: DEE SAM, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

On May 6, 1952, Dee  Sam alias Samuel Dee, a Chinese subject,   filed  an  application  for naturalization  in  the Court of  First Instance of Manila.  After  the usual proceedings,  the application was granted on January  27, 1953 and  it was ordered that in due course and upon compliance with the  requisites prescribed by law a  naturalization certificate  issue to the  petitioner.   On February 16,  1955, more than two years  from the granting of the application for  naturalization, the applicant  petitioned the court to allow him  to  take his  oath of  allegiance  as a  Filipino citizen.   In  his petition, he alleged, among other things, that he had “continuously resided in the Philippines since the promulgation of the decision”.   However, at the  hearing  he admitted that in 1953  he made a trip to Saigon where he remained for  two weeks to settle, according to him, the estate of  his  father  who had died in  Paris. In view  of this admission, the  Solicitor General  opposed the petition.   But the court, after hearing, granted it just the same, holding that petitioner’s short absence from the Philippines in 1953 was not violative of Republic Act No. 530.   From that resolution the  Republic of  the Philippines  has  appealed  to this Court.

Sections 1 and 2 of said Republic Act No. 530 provides:

“Section  1. The  provisions of existing laws  notwithstanding, no petition for  Philippine citizenship shall  be  heard by  the  courts until after six months fronl the publication of the application required by law, nor  shall  any decision granting the  application become executory until  after two years from its promulgation  and  after the court, on  proper hearing, with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his representative, is  satisfied, and so finds, that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not  left the Philippines, (2)   had dedicated himself continuously to  a lawful  calling  or profession, (3) has not boon  convicted of any  offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, (4)  or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or  contrary to  any Government announced policies.

“Sec. 2. After the  finding  mentioned in section one,  the order of the  court granting  citizenship shall be registered and the oath provided by existing laws shall be taken by any applicant’, whereupon, and not before, he will be entitled to all the privileges  of Filipino citizen.”

The above provisions postpone  for two  years the execution  of the decision granting an application  for.Philippine citizenship.  The purpose obviously is to  put the applicant on probation for the length of time, and thereafter he is to be  invested with the,privilege  of Philippine citizenship only if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that since the granting of his application for naturalization he (1) has  not left the Philippines,  (2)  had dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense or  violation of Government promulgated rules,  (4)  or committed any act prejudicial to the interest  of the nation or contrary to  any Government announced policies.   Strict compliance  with these  conditions is essential if the purpose of  the law  is to be achieved, so that a violation of any of them ,bars applicant’s admission  to Philippine citizenship.

Counsel for applicant,  however, calls  attention to  the case of Luis Uy vs. Republic of the Philippines *  G. R. No. L-7054,  promulgated April 29,  1955,  where this  Court said—albeit by way of dictum—that the requirement as to non-absence might possibly admit of some exceptions,  as where the applicant is sent abroad on a Government mission, or kidnapped or forcibly removed from the Philippines or obliged to £0 and stay abroad to undergo  an  operation to save his life.  But it is obvious that  the  present case does not come under any, of those exceptions, and further relaxation of the aforesaid requirement in  deference  to private need or convenience should be avoided as not to open the door to evasions and render the law ineffective. In  view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is revoked and set aside and applicant’s petition for the taking of oath denied, with costs. against the  appellant.

Parás, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,  Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.